The key here is that if the invisible creature is not percieved, then they can just walk away with no reaction from Step Up. This instance only arrives because the GM is trying undermine the player's amazing perception and taking of the Step Up feat (Basically, GM is denying the PC the option to excel in their specialized role/build). Seems like the GM is metagaming. That's how it looks to me, anyway.
I still wouldn't tell the player why they were able to take the 5-foot step if they couldn't percieve the invisible creature. Step Up doesn't grant any knowledge on that subject.
Regarding reacting to things you can't see, let's try the opposite, would you allow Step Up to function with an illusion of a creature? As is, if they can see a creature that isn't there, can they use the feat when that creature appears to take a 5-foot step?
I would not. I don't think the feat functions if the creature isn't really there, even if the character with Step Up thinks they are.
Yes it works on an illusion in my opinion. As far as the fighter knows his enemy is moving away.
That FAQ needs to be cleaned up or done away with. The problem is that it is answering several questions. They should have split it up into several FAQ's.
1. Can the manifestations be used to spellcraft the spell or SLA?
2. Does the manifestation only allow you you to know someone is in the general area or does it pinpoint their location?
2b. What are the limits to noticing a manifestations? As an example if someone is outside would it be seen if the caster I'd 400 feet away?
I am guessing they would say anyone within the range of the spell that has line of sight would notice it.
...I have zero interest in the hypothetical of strategy and motivations. This is a rules questions, not a "how should I play a character" advice thread.Already answered, I'd give it to the player. If they bothered to take Step Up, and you/your NPC didn't plan a counter, then let them use their reactive feat when it is triggered.
The thread has it well covered, there are lots of counters to this feat and
What part of "i have zero interest in the hypothetical strategy and motivations" are you having a hard time with?
Since I did not mention magic, and did mention using a skill, I am not sure what you are talking about.Isn't Invisibility magic?
Ah, I see what you mean.
No, the invisibility is not germane. The feat holder could be blinded by a dirty trick performed by a third party, and thus not be able to see the caster. By your rule, you allow step-up for the invisibility-not-see but not the blind-not-see.
You need to know they took a 5' step in order to use the feat.
If you cannot see them, then how do you know?
It does not matter why you do not see them.
Your previous pinpointing does not apply as it only gives the square you happen to be in, and not your actions in that square.
/cevah
|
What part of "i have zero interest in the hypothetical strategy and motivations" are you having a hard time with?
I was addressing rules. RAW the feat triggers when it says it triggers. Due to a lack of perception requirement, there's no special exemption for invisible creatures. That's your answer.
Perhaps you are looking for another answer, or perhaps you intended to ask a different question.
Since I did not mention magic, and did mention using a skill, I am not sure what you are talking about.Isn't Invisibility magic?Ah, I see what you mean.
No, the invisibility is not germane. The feat holder could be blinded by a dirty trick performed by a third party, and thus not be able to see the caster. By your rule, you allow step-up for the invisibility-not-see but not the blind-not-see.
You need to know they took a 5' step in order to use the feat.
If you cannot see them, then how do you know?
It does not matter why you do not see them.Your previous pinpointing does not apply as it only gives the square you happen to be in, and not your actions in that square.
/cevah
Don't have to see them, just have to perceive them. Perception works. Tremorsense works. Blindsight works. And so on.
Don't have to see them, just have to perceive them. Perception works. Tremorsense works. Blindsight works. And so on.Since I did not mention magic, and did mention using a skill, I am not sure what you are talking about.Isn't Invisibility magic?Ah, I see what you mean.
No, the invisibility is not germane. The feat holder could be blinded by a dirty trick performed by a third party, and thus not be able to see the caster. By your rule, you allow step-up for the invisibility-not-see but not the blind-not-see.
You need to know they took a 5' step in order to use the feat.
If you cannot see them, then how do you know?
It does not matter why you do not see them.Your previous pinpointing does not apply as it only gives the square you happen to be in, and not your actions in that square.
/cevah
I don't think his intent was that "only" seeing works. It is just that seeing is the most common form of highly accurate perception so he went with that. As an example smell is perception, but the sense of smell is not like going to be good enough to let you a creature know that another creature moved.
I made an FAQ post for this so that it takes care of other "reaction based" abilities. Feel free to FAQ this post that is linked to.
I don't think his intent was that "only" seeing works. It is just that seeing is the most common form of highly accurate perception so he went with that. As an example smell is perception, but the sense of smell is not like going to be good enough to let you a creature know that another creature moved.Don't have to see them, just have to perceive them. Perception works. Tremorsense works. Blindsight works. And so on.Since I did not mention magic, and did mention using a skill, I am not sure what you are talking about.Isn't Invisibility magic?Ah, I see what you mean.
No, the invisibility is not germane. The feat holder could be blinded by a dirty trick performed by a third party, and thus not be able to see the caster. By your rule, you allow step-up for the invisibility-not-see but not the blind-not-see.
You need to know they took a 5' step in order to use the feat.
If you cannot see them, then how do you know?
It does not matter why you do not see them.Your previous pinpointing does not apply as it only gives the square you happen to be in, and not your actions in that square.
/cevah
It doesn't have to be smell. If anything, hearing would probably be the next most likely means of using Perception, as it's more accurate than smell, assuming a Human creature, and I'm fairly certain you can still hear somebody walk away, even if you can't see them.
Even so, Perception is abstract as to how it's used, both in and out of combat, similar to Spellcasting. It can even be flavored that it's a sort of "gut sense" that the enemy walked away from you, and so you attempt to react accordingly. It's just that a failed Perception check wouldn't tell you that sort of information for your character to act upon.
I made an FAQ post for this so that it takes care of other "reaction based" abilities. Feel free to FAQ this post that is linked to.
FAQ'd
/cevah
@Darksol the Painbringer: I was using the common word, not the specific game mechanic.
Perceive would have been more accurate but not as understandable to the masses in my opinion.
What part of "i have zero interest in the hypothetical strategy and motivations" are you having a hard time with?I was addressing rules. RAW the feat triggers when it says it triggers. Due to a lack of perception requirement, there's no special exemption for invisible creatures. That's your answer.
Perhaps you are looking for another answer, or perhaps you intended to ask a different question.
This has nothing to do with the point that was being addressed. Why are you replying to me with it? You might be better served replying to someone else... you know... one of the several people who are debating that point.
|
|
This has nothing to do with the point that was being addressed. Why are you replying to me with it? You might be better served replying to someone else... you know... one of the several people who are debating that point.What part of "i have zero interest in the hypothetical strategy and motivations" are you having a hard time with?I was addressing rules. RAW the feat triggers when it says it triggers. Due to a lack of perception requirement, there's no special exemption for invisible creatures. That's your answer.
Perhaps you are looking for another answer, or perhaps you intended to ask a different question.
Well, we're page three, so if there's another point you want addressed, perhaps you should post it (or repost it), instead of just critizing people who think they are helping you by answering the question they think you asked.
I made an FAQ post for this so that it takes care of other "reaction based" abilities. Feel free to FAQ this post that is linked to.
Your new thread in no way helps answer the question posed here, as a critical step- that of the PC already making his Perception check and pinpointing the invisible foe is left out.
I made an FAQ post for this so that it takes care of other "reaction based" abilities. Feel free to FAQ this post that is linked to.Your new thread in no way helps answer the question posed here, as a critical step- that of the PC already making his Perception check and pinpointing the invisible foe is left out.
Doesn't need to. Pinpointing gives a position. It does not give you his action. The FAQ request is about the action.
/cevah
As for the manifestation subtopic there is no ruling or PDT wording that says the location is given away of an invisible spellcasting opponent.
There is also no wording that invisibility conceals manifestations.
The default is manifestations are always perceivable baring specific feats. Nothing exists changing the default, thus manifestations remain perceivable.
Unless you have RAW changing the general rule.
Well, we're page three, so if there's another point you want addressed, perhaps you should post it (or repost it), instead of just critizing people who think they are helping you by answering the question they think you asked.This has nothing to do with the point that was being addressed. Why are you replying to me with it? You might be better served replying to someone else... you know... one of the several people who are debating that point.What part of "i have zero interest in the hypothetical strategy and motivations" are you having a hard time with?I was addressing rules. RAW the feat triggers when it says it triggers. Due to a lack of perception requirement, there's no special exemption for invisible creatures. That's your answer.
Perhaps you are looking for another answer, or perhaps you intended to ask a different question.
I didn't ask a question. In very clear and strong terms I said that I don't have a question.
At this point I'm continuing out of curiosity to see how long this takes.
As for the manifestation subtopic there is no ruling or PDT wording that says the location is given away of an invisible spellcasting opponent.There is also no wording that invisibility conceals manifestations.
The default is manifestations are always perceivable baring specific feats. Nothing exists changing the default, thus manifestations remain perceivable.
Unless you have RAW changing the general rule.
Them being perceivable in no way indicates that location is given away. I do agree that either call is a GM call. That is the reason for the FAQ I wrote.
I made an FAQ post for this so that it takes care of other "reaction based" abilities. Feel free to FAQ this post that is linked to.Your new thread in no way helps answer the question posed here, as a critical step- that of the PC already making his Perception check and pinpointing the invisible foe is left out.
I was not intending to ask that question. The argument presented by some was that the ability could be used on an opponent that you could not perceive.
To ask "can you use the feat/ability if you make the perception check DC" is a different question.
I am not saying your question is not valid, if they say "no" to my question. If they give us an FAQ we can ask about the perception check at that time. They tend to stick around for a little while after issuing an FAQ from my observation.
edit: Even making the check would only give you his new location. It doesn't tell you what he is doing. After he commits the action, it is too late to use reaction based ability no matter if is is moving away or attacking.